Jump to content

Talk:Birth control/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Old Discussion

I don't think that Abstinence should itself be a top-level topic just to discuss abstaining from intercourse in order to avoid conceiving a child. Abstinence can mean abstaining from about anything: from meat if you're a vegetarian, from alcohol if you're a teetotaler, etc. If we don't want these to be subpages of contraception, perhaps that should be something like 'Abstinence as contraception'... although some opponents to contraception may see abstinence as an alternative to contraception, rather than a form of it.

Abstinence is a very important option for many adults but it can be an unpleasent and unnecessary choice for those just wishing to live a healthy life free from std's there are safe ways to enjoy intercourse and we are very impressed with many of them that are described in a wonderful reference about birth control.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.223.132.217 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 3 December 2006.

Abstinence can mean the avoidance of many different things [1], but in ordinary use, I think it almost always means abstinence from sex, with abstinence from alcohol a distant second; see [2]. "Abstinence from alcohol" has other descriptive terms ("sobriety," "teetotalism"), and "sexual abstinence" has one very important synonym: "chastity." But the latter has many religious connotations that the former doesn't have.

So, I'd propose the following article titles:

--[[Larry Sanger]

Thanks for putting my abstinence comment up on the main page. I also like the article titles you proposed. In my experience, chastity is used to refer to 'sexual purity,' which would be sexual abstinence for those unmarried, and sexual faithfulness to one's spouse for those married. I think that was the second entry for chastity at dictionary.com. But it still seems very appropriate to link to the topic from the Abstinence page.

A related topic might be fasting, as in temporary abstinence from food, or just from certain types of food, for a limited period of time, whether for religious or medical reasons.

--Wesley

Can I suggest the first sentence of the intro be changed to read "Birth control is the practice of reducing probability of pregnancy or ending an unwanted pregnancy." Birth control is not a method, technique, device or drug. Moriori 03:08, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I like the synopsis of the Catholic Church's position that is given, but I think other religions should be covered as well, particularly the other major ones (Islam, Hinduism, etc).

I did not include specific references in my explanation of the history of birth control but plan to put them in later. I've seen reference to the things I wrote in several written sources, but it probably isn't authoritative. The history of the condom is a particular favorite for manipulation. Jeeves 01:48, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Some numbers...

Table 1
Perfect and typical first-year failure rates of currently available male contraceptive methods

Method

Perfect use failure rate, %

Typical use failure rate, %

None†

80-90

80-90

Abstinence

0

Unknown

Coitus interruptus

4

20

Male condoms (latex)

3

14

Vasectomy

0.10

0.15

First-year rate. †Unlimited, unprotected intercourse in otherwise fertile women. (Data from Trussell [<a name="IDAM2QJE"></a><a onclick="LoadInParent('/1534-5874/2/338#B20'); return false;" href="/1534-5874/2/338#B20">20</a>].)

Consider the addition of a natural method.

Temporary Sterilization

Sterilization is commonly associated with Surgical sterilization, and yet, other methods of sterilization exist which should be listed.

Temporary male sterilization by radiant heat. (ie. Hot Tub, Iron Radiator, etc.)

Additional research with regard to ideological inversion of medical/traditional fertility advice.

lin:

don't you think every indivudual should have a fair chance of living their life just how they want it? in china a family can only concider one child, in africa aids and hiv are very big concernings, so why aren't the contraceptions for free? I think it should be, that you can choose if you want children yes or no and that it isn't based on your money or government.

Appellations of Birth Control

I am refining the reference to family planning; birth control designates a subset of the activities of constituent of those termed family planning. Specifically, family planning often involves efforts to effect a pregnancy, not avoid one.

Furthermore, the statement that abortion is not birth control may be POV. Humanae Vitae[3], the Catholic encyclical which state's the Churches' position on birth control, applicable today to 1.3 billion persons, lumps abortion right in there with everything else under the heading Unlawful Birth Control Methods. The Church would seem to differentiate then between contraception and birth control, and this would be a POV which demands to be addressed.

It is not "POV" to say that abortion is not birth control, depending on what definition of birth control were working with. As mentioned in a comment below, the words contraception and birth control have been muddied, and further so by the implantatio/fertilization argument. It is made quite clear in the FIRST paragraph of the article, however, that this article uses the definition of preventing preganancy (thus equating contraception and birth control together). Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that is already implanted and has begun gestation. No "birth control" option can terminate a pregnancy that is already in gestation, though they can possibly cause problems or induce a miscarriage, albeit rarely. But they are neither effective enough nor primarily used for that purpose, so they are labelled as birth control methods. Abortion (and chemical abortion) are terminations of pregnancies, and in no way "prevents" them in the medical sense of the word.SiberioS 17:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Major Ban on Use of Contraceptives

On 27 July 2005, the Wisconsin legislature — in a midnight session — banned all contraceptives and their uses from all state universities with bill [UW Birth Control Ban-AB 343] [4]. I seriously believe this totally unconstitutional attack should be noted prominently on the main page, but leave that discretion to others. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 15:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

One does not want Wikipedia to be too USA/UK/English-centric, but this is a clear example of the continuing controversy mentioned by the article's opening paragraphs and, if others agree, I suggest the addition of the following:

----
A recent example is the USA Wisconsin legislature in a midnight session on 27 July 2005, banning contraceptives and their uses from all state universities with bill [UW Birth Control Ban-AB 343] [http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/07/27/64850]; this is being challanged.

David Ruben 18:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

But ... this is apparently the largest successful attack against "choice" in decades! In fact, the Pro-Life group who promoted it so vociferously finally fessed up: It's leadership came out this week proclaiming that they weren't concerned so much with the killing of fetuses as in limiting a woman's ability to get out of pregnancy in any instance (whether defensively or actively). It came down to them wanting to — and this is sickeningly scary ... in the Taliban sense! — reduce prolifency!!! They were more concerned with stopping sexual expression of women than saving what they claimed were the lives of fetuses. (this is very hard to semantically discuss in a NPOV :-//). Basically it all comes back to the Puritanical (and patriarchal religions in general) desire to keep women totally underdeveloped servants of men, something a heathilly expressed sexuality thoroughly thrashes. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 20:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a case of misrepresentation by a few leaders, it certainly doesnt not represent the view at the grass roots. Certainly the catholic position sees the anticontraception movement as re-establishing the dignity of women. See the writings of George Weigel for a decent overview.

How is an abortificient birth control?

Doesn't a pregnancy occur? --Rakista 16:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that technically, anything that prevents a birth is, etymologically speaking, birth control. The confusion is because "birth control" and "contraception" are often used interchangeably. Any effect that takes place after conception is not contraception. (This is further complicated by both the existence of methods that can work either before or after fertilization, and the fertilization vs. implantation debate, which I'm not even going to get into here!) --Icarus 06:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Should we merge it with the real abortifacient page, which is lacking this information? I am pretty sure anything that causes an abortion is not medically considered birth control. --Rakista 16:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That's true. Abortion is not birth control at all. That is just as wrong as saying if you have an irritated cut on your hand, you should chop off your arm so an infection doesn't spread to the rest of your body.

Actually, people DO cut off their arms so the infection doesn't go to the whole body. Or are you unawareof gangrene, cancer, or other forms diseases that require either amputation or biopsys to remove the possibility of infection.SiberioS 17:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand some of the comments here at all. It seems clear to me that anything that controls whether birth occurs or not is birth control. That includes abstinence, contraceptives and abortion. Or do you consider an abortion to be a form of birth, therefore an abortion is not "controlling" birth because the birth happens in any case? "Birth" means a baby coming out of the mother -- it's the thing that happens at the end of pregnancy. Conception happens around the beginning of pregnancy. An abortion is usually not referred to as a birth, as far as I know. I believe the Pill and the IUD sometimes or often or usually work as abortifacients. If so, they are birth control but not necessarily contraceptive. --Coppertwig 16:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Percentages for different contraception methods

Could we have some percentages of failure for the different contraception methods? Peter S. 01:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Because I felt this, in a summarized form, along with an accessible list for various contraception methods would be useful, I made this article: Comparison of birth control methods. Of course, feel free to add on more information or improve it as necessary. :-) The percentages came from the publication listed under the article's "references" header. -- Northgrove 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Great job on the table - I corrected the values for IUS and renamed some of terms used to reflect common usage and how terms used in wikipedia (hence 'Perfect-use' rather than "Lowest possible" rates, progesterone rather than progestin (old arguement - yes I'll accept that synthetic progesterones are used called progestins, but that is not term used in clinical textbooks or (UK) drug formularies - so used term 'synthetic progesterone'). Also I converted the mathematical notation for range of values into prose (ie 'X<1%' to 'under 1%' and '1% < X < 5%' to 'under 5%').
More importantly, I wonder (having added a link to Pearl index) whether this tabe should not be merged to the incomplete table at Pearl index - that said, the Pearl index article discusses what the index is and only needs examples of index values, Comparison of birth control methods then lists a large number of methods, some of which did not even exist when the Pearl index was formulated. David Ruben Talk 02:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Birth control in the Bible?

On the subject of Chrisitan attitudes towards birth control, I would like to know: Where in the Bible does it say that contraceptives are bad? Can anyone give some quotes to support this? (It might be relevant to have these in the article.) SpectrumDT 17:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Story of Onan and spilling of the seed. -- Jbamb 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not the sin of onan, onan is struck down because he is dishonouring his brother by refusing to father children who will bear his brothers name. At least that is what i was always taught. You could check out the catholic commentaries, they tend to have a more coherent interpretation of these passages that are so heavily Tradition dependant.... Birth Control is seen to be implicity wrong on the genisis quote "be fruitful and multiply" wherever it amounts to limiting the family for reasons of he convience of the parents, without reference to he well being of the potential child, ie if you will be unable to care for it in an absolute sense, and i doubt that that applies very often in the west..... For further reasoning check out John Paul II's Theology of the body. Also Anticontraception teaching is not new, and is mentioned in the writings of many of the early fathers.....I wish i could remember the references...... In fact it was always seen to be wrong, and is part of the living tradition of morality, it was just never wide spread enough to get enough attention for lots of formal teaching/theology until this century.

Nuva Ring

Id like to see some info added about NuvaRing, a birth control method which consists of inserting a ring into the vagina which releases hormones directly. It uses combination horomones (etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol). Information regarding it can be found at nuvaring.com and plannedparenthood.org.

Abstinence and AIDs

"Recent research shows that abstinence-only strategies may deter contraceptive use among sexually active teenagers, increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy and STDs." www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_sex_ed02.html

If youth receive abstinence-only sex-ed, they will be less likely to use condoms if they have sex.

It's a moot point, considering there's no research indicating that abstinence-only sex-ed prevents AIDs transmission.

I'm sorry, using someone who has a vested interested in selling contraception and abortion is hardly considered a viable source. People are making unsupported claims, it should be stated as such. And quite frankly, when people have sex responsibly, AIDS well go away. Provide another source, or I'll put the perfectly fair NPOV statement back. -- Jbamb 05:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
First off, The Guttmacher Institute doesn't manufacture or sell contraceptives. It's a non-profit organization. Secondly, WikiPedia doesn't exist to judge peoples' viewpoints. Since there's no research that I can find indicating that abstinence-only sex-ed prevents HIV, if we're going to accuse one side making unsupported claims, we have to accuse the other of the same, if we're to remain unbiased.
First off, The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. There is no judgement needed here, you wouldn't ask Howard Dean to write an article on the GOP, would you? It's NPOV, not APOV (antagonistic). Find an unbiased source or it goes back up. -- Jbamb 06:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Check out wikipedia's entry on sex-ed, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education#Scientific_study_of_sex_education. It links to and summarizes the results of a study printed in the British Medical Journal, which states that abstinence-only sex-ed fails to reduce teen pregnancy, and may in fact contribute to it.
Which is an entirely different issue all together. We aren't talking about teen pregnancy, and the study was flawed regardless. -- Jbamb 15:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Abstinence is the only strategy that has ever been shown to work, cf uganda and the ABC program, vs everywhere else and more condoms and more aids. Also aids transmission stats are often misleading, as they should be cumulative. so if they say 90% protection, that normally means over one year, which would mean 81% over two years etc...... phil_20686 Stats on std prevention can be found here:http://www.premaritalsex.info/docs/condomreport.pdf this is a USA fed gov report. Summary here:Summary of the 2001 NIH Reporton Condom Effectiveness

STD Incidence(est. number of new cases every year) Prevalence(est. number of people currently infected) Condom Effectiveness

HIV/AIDS 63,900** 900,000** 85% risk reduction*

Gonorrhea 650,000*** 359,000*** Women: No clinical proof of effectivenessMen: Some risk reduction*

Chlamydia 3 million*** 2 million*** No clinical proof of effectiveness*

Trichomoniasis 5 million*** Not Available No clinical proof of effectiveness*

Chancroid 1,000*** Not Available No clinical proof of effectiveness*

Syphilis 70,000*** 6,000**** No clinical proof of effectiveness*

Genital Herpes 1 million*** 45 million*** No clinical proof of effectiveness*

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 5.5 million*** 20 million*** No clinical proof of effectiveness*

Phil 20686 20:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The only way to get "clinical proof of effectiveness" is to do a randomized trial with couples where one had a known STI and the other was known to be uninfected. Half the participants are told to use condoms when having sex with their infected partners, and the other half is told to have unprotected sex with infected partners. The circumstantial proof of condom's effectiveness (nothing like 100%, mind, but still a significant reduction in risk) against STIs is so overwhelming that it is considered unethical to even suggest such clinical proof trials be conducted.
Secondly, the widely touted Uganda ABC program has turned out only to be effective in reducing number of AIDs-infected people NOT because of A, B, or C but rather because of D. Death. So many people are dying of AIDs in Uganda that even though sexual behavoirs have not changed (there has been no measurable increase in abstinence, faithfullness, and condom usage has go up only slightly) the number of AIDs-infected people is going down.Study Lyrl 00:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Indeed, noone said that they do not provided risk reduction, but the question is and has always been, how much. Condoms are commonly touted as providing (near) total safetly from HIV, but 85% (presuabley over 1 year?) is a long way from totally safe. that would be 72% over two years etc..... With this level of 'safety' encourageing 'safe sex' will likely lead to more promiscuity and more infections. Besides, I do not think Death can be usd to explain it, as the population has not declined, and as 30% were infected in the 90's there must be a reason why rates have declines soo much more than in other african countries, and the only difference in approach is the ABC program. Thirdly, the link one refers to new data, it does not reference the study itself, and thus is of doubtful use. Phil 20686 23:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The study was presented at the 12th Annual Retrovirus Conference in Boston by Maria Wawer. More details of the study are here. The NPR clip I linked to first also has commentary by Ted Green of Harvard who believes abstinence and faithfullness did increase when the ABC program first started, but the Rachai study began after those two components had stopped changing (though the study actually documents a significant increase in promiscuous behavoir over the past decade).Lyrl 00:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancient IUDs

There are references in Arabic history to traders inserting a small stone into the uterus of a camel in order to prevent it from conceiving, a concept very similar to the modern IUD, but it seems unlikely that this was used as a contraceptive method for humans since knowledge of the female reproductive tract was very limited until the 20th century, and surgical techniques were poor.

Could someone point me to a cite for what follows "it seems unlikely"? Who says it seems unlikely? And what's the relevance of surgical techniques? Does the author of this sentence believe, perhaps, that surgery is involved in either human or camel birth control? What's more, I somewhat doubt that knowledge of the female reproductive tract -- at least, those parts of it into which something could be inserted and extracted -- was in any way limited prior to the 20th century. I suspect people have been inserting and extracting objects thusly for a very long time. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Inserting something into the vaginal canal is one thing. Forcing the cervical os open in order to insert something into the uterus is another thing entirely, and is considered surgery. Trans-vaginal surgery is less invasive than abdominal surgery, but it is surgery nonetheless. There is no written record of inserting birth control devices into the human uterus prior to about 1900. The early devices all had very high rates of infection. Seeing someone die of sepsis from a birth control method is likely to discourage use of that method, so I agree with the statement "it seems unlikely".
Actually, it appears the camel story itself is a myth
Legend has it that Arab camel drivers inspired the modern IUD. According to the story, tiny stones were inserted into the uterus of each female camel to prevent pregnancy during long caravan journeys across the desert (Bullough & Bullough, 1990). The story was a tall tale told to entertain delegates at a scientific conference on family planning, but it was repeated so many times that many people have assumed it is true (Thomsen, 1988). [5] Lyrl 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Women's rights

After a quick look on this article, there's nothing about social issues, women's rights or feminism... Ericd 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

RISUG

Imagine a 100% effective, 100% reversible, minimally invasive method of male contraception. Well, it seems it exists: http://www.malecontraceptives.org/methods/risug.htm DalkeyArchivist 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

RISUG — Omegatron 22:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Blacksmith's water

From the "History of birth control" paragraph: The Greek gynaecologist Soranus in the second century AD suggested that women drink water that blacksmiths had used to cool metal.

Is this sentence supposed to be refering to a kind of folk abortifacient or rather a contraceptive? Does anyone have a source to verify this? I've only managed to find two references to such a practice (one a remedy for anemia/spleenic disorders?):

-Severa (!!!) 10:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The way the article was written when I first saw it, I assumed that information was from the John Riddle book in the references. Before modern understanding of reproduction, people had no way of distinguishing between contraceptives and early-acting abortifacients - they were all just methods of birth control.Lyrl 14:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. -Severa (!!!) 11:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Pre-ejaculate fluid and pregnancy

While the citations and recent changes are helpful, I believe it is not telling the whole story. Please see the first few hits here and also the article on Pre-ejaculate. We should at least state that the effectiveness of coitus interruptus is not as high as other methods.--Andrew c 23:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The method effectiveness of withdrawal is comparable to barrier methods such as the condom (male and female) and diaphragm. The typical effectiveness of withdrawal is comparable to the female condom and to spermicide.[6]
I do agree the current edit doesn't "tell the whole story" as it doesn't have warnings about disease transmission or picking up sperm from a previous ejaculation. I'm not sure how in detail a general article on birth control should go on a specific method, or even that my edit is appropriate. I was just tired of reverting edits saying that pre-e was always full of viable sperm. Lyrl 01:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I see now, looking through the page history, you were just correcting a fairly poor addition. Perhaps this article would be best without the sentence in question (all this information and more can already be found at the coitus interruptus page). (also, in regards to effectiveness, there is the matter of perfect use vs. typical use)--Andrew c 01:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
See also edits on 9-May-2006, 15-April-2006, and 22-February-2006. This is a common problem. I agree the article is better without that sentence - I actually removed a paragraph going into the effectiveness of withdrawal on 15-February-2006. There has to be some way to avoid all the inaccurate edits without having a mini-article on withdrawal, right?Lyrl 02:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Effectiveness of birth control section

The section has been edited in such a way that it is biased against fertility awareness and withdrawal. I suspect such edits will be common if that section is left. I do not want to leave such biased edits there, but I also do not want to be continually "guarding" that section. I would like to simply delete that section from this article, and leave effectiveness discussions to the individual articles. What do others think of this proposal? Lyrl 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I suspect you will end up "guarding" against edits to effectiveness values on multiple pages.
  • Also whilst each method's article can discuss details and benefits/risks/special points, this article would be the ideal method to compare and contrast some of the more important features, of which effectiveness is one aspect (so poorer levels with condoms may be suitable for separating further pregnancies as further children are not unwanted, IUCDs/hormonal perhaps higher levels). Also:
    • if permanent/reversible
    • time for return to fertility after use (e.g. 0-4 weeks for combined pill, 6-9 months for Depo-provera)
    • "hassle factors" (for pills the COCP 12hr window to take, POP 3hrs, IUD to check thread can be felt needs be done after each period)
    • frequency of review visits to doctor or nurse (in UK generally 6monthly for pills, annually for IUDs)
    • whether they provide any protection against STDs (we need not argue over minutiae, but generally abstinence, condoms & femidom yes and everything else no)
    • possibility of weight gain (no for IUD, possible but mild not uncommon for pills)
    • effect on heaviness of periods (pills & IUS generally lighter, IUD generally slightly heavier)
    • risks - e.g. DVT for combined pills, PID for IUDs. Combined pills small incr. risk breast cancer, but probably greater reduction in endometrial cancer.
    • secondary benefits - e.g. most combined pills help to some extent for acne (some more than others), IUS best of options for heavy periods as also used for menorrhagia. IUS/IUD best option for those on enzyme inducing drugs (anticonvulsants) when hormonal methods less effective
  • Currently much of this article is to do with religious & cultural aspects rather than discussing/comparing methods, which is really good, but a comparative table it might make the article rather too long. So:
  • Looks like I may have thought of too many options to fit into a table on a screen (allowing for those with monitors set at 800x600 resolution), so perhaps:
    1. A standard-format bullet-point list - i.e. each method forms a section with a set sequence of bullet-point items OR
    2. A standardising template box that can be completed on each method's article page - e.g. see how the Drugbox template gives a consistant look and organisation of data on say Amoxicillin & Diazepam - If this has wide support, I'm happy to create such a basis for such a template where discussion can be held on which parameters we wish to include.

David Ruben Talk 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to code either a table or template for this, or help out in that regard, once we can decide on the right course of action. I feel like a basic comparison table could work for the main article, and perhaps have a more detailed template for the individual articles. And to address Lyrl's concerns, I think users would be less likely to edit war over the numbers in a table, especially if each and every figure is backed up with reliable sources. --Andrew c 01:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The actual articles fertility awareness and coitus interruptus only rarely get those edits, whether because of the more extensive information provided there, or because of their lower visibility I do not know. I do not believe they are any better sourced. It concerned me to see the current POV edit happen just three days after creation of the new section. Anything others could do to reduce the frequency of such occurences I would be happy to see. Lyrl 23:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Lyrl - I have not really peviously watched this article, and it is not immediately apparant from the history, but whom do you feel you have been "guarding" against - anons or registered users. If the former and this has been systemtic, then I believe articles can be made 'restricted status' by admins (allows only registered users to edit) - but I'm not sure what the criteria are for this to be felt an appropriate restriction on wikipedia's "the free encyclopedia". David Ruben Talk 01:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles

Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick call for final viewing of infobox before I turn it live with active coding (for the optional parameters). Also please confirm suggested name of BirthControl infobox . Thanks David Ruben Talk 02:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Catholic teaching on birth control

This section was expanded, I moved the information to the main article Christian views on contraception. But then the information was re-added to this article. Is the expansion necessary for the summary on this page? There is an entire article dedicated to the subject of Christianity and contraception that readers could go to if they wanted to read more. Lyrl 01:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say keep it on the subpage, as long as there is a [main] tag directing to it. But let's give anon a chance to defend the position.--Andrew c 02:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Content removed from Sexual intercourse

An editor removed the following from Sexual intercourse with the statement that it would belong better here. Opinions on how to integrate the material would be welcome.

A [[prophylactic]] such as a [[condom]] is among the most effective methods of birth control short of sterilization or abstinence, with the [[World Health Organization]] stating that with "typical" condom use (in which condoms were sometimes incorrectly or inconsistently used), they have a failure rate of only 10-14% (with "ideal" use, they are 97% effective).<ref>World Health Organization, "Effectiveness of male latex condoms in protecting against pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections" Fact Sheet #243 (June 2000), online at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/.</ref> [[Sterilization (surgical procedure)|Surgical sterilization]] ([[tubal ligation]] for women or [[vasectomy]] for men) is considered permanent birth control, though it can sometimes [[Vasovasostomy|be reversed surgically]], or, rarely, the body can repair itself. [[Outercourse]], and other sexual contact (such as [[mutual masturbation]] or [[oral sex]]), in which there is sexual activity without penis insertion, can be performed without resulting in pregnancy provided that semen does not come in contact with the [[vulva]].

Cheers, Kasreyn 02:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Modern folklore clarification

The Modern folklore section refers to "the myth that a woman cannot get pregnant if she has sex during her period" This has a kernal of truth to it, though. Studies have shown that the intercourse on the first 5-6 days of a menstrual cycle has a less-than-1% per-year chance of pregnancy (Weshler says five days, Kippley says six). Exceptions are annovulatory bleeding (which someone not tracking fertility signs would be unable to recognize) and women who tend to unusually early ovulations (common during perimenopause). And many women have periods that last longer than five or six days.

Sex during menstruation is certainly not effective birth control (absent other fertility awareness practices/knowledge). However, I'm reluctant to leave in that sentence that dismisses the entire idea of the first few days of a cycle being infertile. I'm not sure how to modify it to both be more accurate and still discourage uneducated attempts at unprotected intercourse. Any suggestions? Lyrl Talk Contribs 01:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How about something like "While women are commonly significantly less fertile during the first few days of a menstrual cycle, it is still false to say that a woman can never get pregnant if she has sex during her period...." Sound ok? something along those line..--Andrew c 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

These links have been deleted several times, with no explanation in the edit summary. Do other editors have opinions on whether they should be included? Lyrl Talk Contribs 13:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The editor who removed them had been posting an affiliate link site to several articles, and I removed them all since I deemed the URL to be of no benefit. I assume the removal of the other sites, which seem to be correctly placed in this article is a reaction to the revert of his previous postings. If you agree with my analysis, then IMO, that would be considered deliberate removal of content. --Brat32 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Quiverfull Movement

Unlike Catholic Opposition to the Church's teaching on contraception, which includes a majority of Catholics in Western countries, the Quiverfull movement is a tiny movement within Protestantism and is not notable. It shouldn't be in a general article on contraception.

-Alexeditor.

There are different definitions of "notable" used on Wikipedia. One I've seen is that something that results in 50-100 Google hits might be considered notable. A Google search of "quiverfull" generates 49,500 hits. Browsing through the first several pages, they all seem to be about the religious movement, and in the first five pages, only one Wikipedia article. By that measure, the movement would seem to be notable.
I also like the flow of the article better when it has two examples of religious people disagreeing with their leader's teachings on birth control. That makes the subject of Christian teachings on birth control a little less Catholic-centric. While the magnitude of opposition is completely different within the Catholic and Protestant communities, just the fact that the type of opposition goes both ways seems interesting enough to include in the article. Lyrl Talk Contribs 20:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a good enough argument for the Quiverfull movement having it's own page, but not it's own mention on a page like this one. This article would be endless if you were to include the views of every group imaginable on something such as Birth Control. Note that everything else in this section refers to the major religious views on Birth Control, even large groups such as the Mormons and the Orthodox Christians receive no mention as to their religious views on Birth Control. It's not appropriate to give space only to the most well known religions, and then a specific mention to a small group such as the Quiverfull movement. The mention of Catholic opposition to Birth Control is notable only because it is so widespread that a discussion on Catholic views regarding contraception would be incomplete without it.

-Alexeditor

The Mormons and Orthodox Christians are certain notable as groups. But is their position on birth control notable? I was under the impression they had the same views as Protestant Christians.
Quiverfull as a religious movement is small, and as a group it may not be notable. But its position on birth control is odd enough to merit mention when discussing "religious and cultural views" about fertility regulation. It seems incomplete to discuss Christian views on family planning without any mention at all that some Christian groups believe all family planning is wrong.
There are other Christian groups opposed to family planning (such as the Amish). Would Alexeditor (or other editors) be opposed to a sentence such as "some Christian groups oppose all forms of family planning, including NFP"? So that the viewpoint is mentioned, but specific sects are not? Lyrl Talk Contribs 00:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The Mormons do allow Contracpetion; the various Orthodox Churches of the world are divided on the matter as to the acceptability of contraception. Some teach that any contraceptive method that doesn't hurt an already concieved foetus is acceptable, other believe that contraception is unacceptable. Orthodoxy is a major world faith which is not even receiving a mention.
You raise a good point regarding the amish, and I could see some mention there under Protestantism. However, I wouldn't put it as it was in the old version where it was described as opposition to the movement's official teaching; as there is no one official "Protestant Teaching" on this issue as there is in the Catholic Church.
The main issue I had with the previous version was the mention of Catholic and Protestant disagreement side by side without any mention of scale, as you have on one hand near uniformity(as with Protestantism), whereas on the Catholic side you likely have a majority disagreeging with the official position. An equivalent thing would be if it were written in an article on the Israeli-Arab conflict: "Some Arabs believe Israel should give up control of East Jerusalem. Some Jews also believe this". That would be technically true, but without any mention of scale it would also be horribly misleading....
- Alexeditor

I would argue that the Quiverfull movement is larger than one might think. Here are dedicated books on the subject.

  • Campbell, Nancy. Be Fruitful and Multiply. Vision Forum, San Antonio, TX: 2003. ISBN 097241735
  • Hess, Rick and Jan. A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ. Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, Brentwood, TN: 1990. ISBN 0943497833
  • Owen, Jr., Samuel A. Letting God Plan Your Family. Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL: 1990. ISBN 0891075852
  • Provan, Charles D. The Bible and Birth Control. Zimmer Printing, Monongahela, PA: 1989. ISBN 9991799834
  • Scott, Rachel. Birthing God's Mighty Warriors. Xulon Press, Longwood, FL: 2004. ISBN 1594674655

CyberAnth 03:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I added an inline link in the Religious views section: "...while Protestants maintain a wide range of views from allowing none to very lenient." CyberAnth 06:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex education and birth control

Thanks, Lyrl. That's a much better revision, and my complaints are put to rest.

As an aside, is anyone else having trouble saving revisions? I've lost two saves--including this one--in two days. May just be a Mac thing or something else specific to me, but I'm asking anyway. --BCSWowbagger 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ease of using NFP

I moved this section here from the article:Many Catholic couples praise the ease, convenience, and low cost of NFP, noting that the woman's period of fertilization is never more than five days a month at the very worst. Such couples often note further that even during those five days of fertilization, couples are free (even by church teaching) to enjoy each other's bodies without sexual intercourse.

I am a practitioner of fertility awareness (NFP for non-Catholics, basically), and while I love the method, that "five days a month at the very worst" is absolutely false. Normal is eight to ten days fertile days per cycle. Stress, premenopause, breastfeeding, and certain hormonal disorders can greatly increase that number. If a woman practicing NFP is only identifying five fertile days a cycle, she is at high risk of unplanned pregnancy. This is further discussed (with references) in the fertility awareness and natural family planning articles.

Secondly, for observant Catholics, orgasmic acts outside of intercourse are considered sins. That last sentence of the quoted section is completely and totally misleading. This is discussed (with reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church) in the Christian views on contraception article. Lyrl Talk Contribs 13:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As a practicing Catholic, I can say that you are absolutely correct. I tagged it with {fact} in case anyone wanted to contest my eventual deletion. So I agree with your removal. --BCSWowbagger 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Religious discussion in main article

As the main article size was 36K and growing, I have created a new article titled Religious views on birth control. As suggested in [article size guidelines], I have created a summary in this article of what the section held. Lengthy religious viewpoints are not appropriate for this page; this article exists primarily to provide descriptions of different types of birth control. Please discuss. Joie de Vivre 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Lyrl has not responded to my above comment, but has now reinstated the long-winded discussion of religious (mainly Christian) views on birth control (article size now 36K), has removed the mention of US officials blocking access to birth control on the grounds of their religious beliefs, and has reinstated the inclusion of Natural Family Planning as a distinct birth control method (when in fact it can better be described as a Catholic stamp of approval on methods that were already mentioned in the article). These revisions are NPOV. Please discuss. Joie de Vivre 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel the discussion on NFP is important, but I admit where to include it is problematic. It isn't a specific method of birth control, but a collection of methods. But FA isn't one specific method either, but a class of methods. Maybe we can find a better way to include the info, but reducing the content to one sentence is not helpful at all. I'm not sure how I feel about all this content forking. It was proposed that the Christian views on contraception page be split up (even though there is no size warning), and now we are forking off the religious views into its own article. I just don't think we are at the point where we need a dozen different articles covering the same topic from different POVs. Maybe having one article on the religious views can work, and possibly also keeping the Christian views article, but I'd strongly suggest working on those two before creating any more forks (and to address the relevent concern, a summary needs to take the place of the longer content that has been forked out, per policy, if we decide to keep the forks).--Andrew c 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The article size guideline is only for readability, not for precise size, and should be considered on a case by case basis. The guideline also only applies to the main body of the text, not references, external links, infoboxes, etc. - excluding those things brings this article below the old technical limit of 32K. Size alone is not a reason to move content from this article. See the condom article, for example, at 56K - and no one there is suggesting content needs to be forked.
I also feel NFP needs to be discussed on this page. The current single sentence misrepresents the use of the term, by implying anyone who uses FA is also an NFP user - when in fact the abstinence requirement of NFP is very important. The single sentence also fails to let readers know that LAM is also included in the NFP umbrella. And it implies that the Rhythm Method is considered a type of FA - a classification that is highly controversial, as teachers of highly effective observational FA methods want nothing to do with the notorious Rhythm.
The topic of this article is not limited to descriptions of methods - it also includes history of the concept of birth regulation, for example. I view religious attitudes toward birth control as a valid topic. As Andrew pointed out, there needs to be a summary of any content that is forked. Shortening the summary is fine, but removing it altogether does not help the article.
The section on US government officials is highly POV - it implies that a majority of pro-life politicians oppose birth control and all forms of sex education. Opposition to all birth control is actually a tiny minority in the pro-life movement. The sex ed debate is also much more complex than a yes/no question as presented in this paragraph, and besides, should be addressed in the main article and the specific "Birth control education" subsection, not in a section on government officials. The paragraph also fails to mention that pro-choice activists work not only against government regulation, but also for government support, in the form of paying for abortions for destitute women, for example. Lyrl Talk Contribs 22:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I request that you respond to my comments in this and the "Inclusion of term NFP" sections, before making future revisions. Joie de Vivre 23:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd hardly say that Mr. de Vivre's waiting a mere five hours for a response--after deleting a large section without a consensus in a relatively controversial article--is fair to Lyrl. I motion that the previous content be reinstated until a positive consensus is established against the NFP passage. Further comment from me will come later... not on Mr. de Vivre's tight timetable. --BCSWowbagger 01:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I second BCSWowbagger's motion. CyberAnth 02:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing (<1 month) and should have made more effort towards discussion before enacting a large change. I didn't realize it would cause trouble, as I was the user who split the list of BC methods into Physical, Behavioral and In Development categories -- a major change which was received well. I became a bit overconfident afterwards. I now understand the importance of consensus, and do beg everyone's pardon. Let's continue the discussion. Joie de Vivre 11:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of term NFP

Fertility awareness is a relatively new, feminist-associated term used by a few small organizations in the US [7] and Canada [8]. Natural family planning is a term that has been in use for over fifty years, and is used by large, worldwide organizations [9] [10]. While I feel FA is the more technically accurate term, NFP is certainly the more popular and recognized one. For better understanding of what is being discussed, then, I support the mention of NFP alongside all mentions of FA.

Confusion between the terms NFP and FA is also very common. The U.K. government uses the terms interchangeably [11]. Another British website using the terms interchangeably: [12]. There are also many American websites that use the terms interchangeably [13] [14]. Because actual teachers and users of the methods distinguish between the two terms, combined with the widespread conflation of them, I feel it is important for this Wikipedia article to clarify the differences. Lyrl Talk Contribs 22:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The confusion between the terms is what got me started editing articles on specific methods. I think it's not only important to describe the technical differences between the terms, but also to explain that they are used (whether inaccurately or not) interchangably. Maybe the text from either NFP or FA's main article that discusses both terms could be of use to us here?--Andrew c 23:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The references you used in making your case for the use of the term NFP are flimsy. For instance, you mentioned that the term NFP is used by "large, worldwide organizations" such as the Couple to Couple League [15]. A summary of this organization's bio: "John and Sheila Kippley founded the Couple to Couple League in response to Pope Paul VI's recommendation that married couples help other married couples with Natural Family Planning." In this case, the term is used by a worldwide organization run by Catholics. You also claimed that "the UK government" uses the terms interchangably, but the so-called "UK government" site you mentioned [16] has no discernable ties to any governmental organization.
And as for the "American websites that use the terms interchangably"; the first, Epigee [17] has a distinct anti-abortion slant. The site was created by a woman who spent 15 years working at anti-abortion "pregnancy crisis centers" [18], which are known for deliberately providing false information to dissuade women from abortion [19]. The creator of the site refers to the fetus (during an abortion) as a "child" [20] -- see "late abortion". The site also uses the term "unborn child" and "preborn baby" [21], as well as the term 'abortionist' on a page dotted with the word "beware" [22], all of which are anti-abortion terms. Besides all this, there is a page entitled "God's Word For Singles" [23]. We can be fairly certain that the site's creator is not using the term NFP to describe anything but Natural Family Planning with the Christian restrictions. Including a link to this site does not constitute proof that the terms are used interchangably by anyone but Christians.
The other American website you mentioned to support your claim [24] is called "The American Pregnancy Association". It has no information about birth control, but has forums for expecting mothers, and says that one of the first things a woman should do in the event of unexpected pregnancy is get a sonogram [25], a tactic championed by anti-abortion activists for deterring women from getting abortions [26].
The only groups which I have seen using the terms NFP and FA interchangably are those run by Christians, who undoubtedly are thinking of the term NFP in a religious context. You have demonstrated that the term NFP has undeniable Christian connotations. As I detailed more thoroughly in my comment below, there is no good reason to include religious classification of methods that have already been mentioned in the article, nor is there good reason to include the term NFP with each mention of fertility awareness. The people who use the terms "fertility awareness" and "natural family planning" interchangably are usually Christian. It's misleading and confusing to mention natural family planning, a term that is best used to describe an array of Catholic-sanctioned BC methods, each time fertility awareness is mentioned. Joie de Vivre 23:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Lyrl's version is more accurate in that it mentions methods that are not FA that are part of NFP (and it'd be even more accurate if it mentioned periodic abstinence during fertile periods). But I agree that we don't need to put the term NFP early in that section, right next to FA. Having the one paragraph by itself is good enough. As for the interchangability of these terms: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] etc. --Andrew c 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I support clarifying that "natural family planning" is sometimes used interchangably with "fertility awareness". It must also be made clear that the term NFP has strong Catholic connotations. "Fertility awareness" should remain as the title of the section, as this term is more neutral: women can use FA with no intention of ever becoming pregnant or "planning a family". These clarifications are important. This said, there is not a good reason to include a thorough description of the religious restrictions involved in practicing fertility awareness techniques in ways that qualify as Catholic-approved 'natural family planning'.

The abstinence requirement of NFP is significant only in a theological sense. So are the requirements that Catholic couples practicing NFP not participate in any orgasmic act outside of intercourse, that they both be Catholic, that they be married. These restrictions have nothing to do with birth control, they involve obeying the decree of religious leaders. All NFP-related methods (FA, Rhythm, and lactational amenorrhea) are already mentioned in the article. Apart from the religious restrictions, NFP methods do not differ from these. Thus, NFP need not be given its own section.

The only reason that NFP need be mentioned is in clarification of the term. Mention of the dual usage of the term NFP should not act as a segue to the details of the ways in which the methods must be practiced in order to follow the rules of the Catholic church. These details are already well-described in the natural family planning main article. Religiously-backed behavior systems do not belong in the list of birth control methods. Also, it is not appropriate to include the indication that certain methods are approved by certain religions. The existing disambiguation of the term "natural family planning", under the Fertility Awareness section of this article, is sufficient. Joie de Vivre 19:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Both myself and Andrew made statements about discussing FA and NFP together. Joie said, "I support clarifying that "natural family planning" is sometimes used interchangably with "fertility awareness"." I then implemented that change (to me, it seemed to be supported by everyone on the Talk page), in the history section. Then, Joie reverted my change, stating that I had ignored the Talk page discussion. I hope my frustration at this sequence of events is understandable.
I believe it is confusing to only use a relatively new, not commonly recognized term (FA) (172,000 hits on Google[34]) when a more widely-known similar term (NFP) (654,000 hits on Google[35]) is available to use as clarification. I do not believe the religious affiliation of people using the terms is relevant; only how easily recognized the terms are by the general population. Although Andrew has provided a number of good links for usage.
I also do not understand the objection to stating that the term NFP can include FA, statistical, and LAM. 0.2% of the U.S. population uses a diaphragm. 0.9% - four times as many - of the population uses NFP. ([36] - see Table 7) Doesn't NFP deserve as much space as the diaphragm in this article? Lyrl Talk Contribs 01:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Your first paragraph is an oversimplification of events. Did you even read the rest of my comment? I said that I supported clarifying the dual usage of the term (with "natural family planning" sometimes being used to describe non-religious use of fertility awareness methods), and then immediately went on to say that I did NOT support using that word-use clarification as a springboard to describe the specifics of the belief-based set of methods. As I had been clear that I would not support that addition, in no way was my revision contradictory; your implication is baseless. That said, I have gone into great detail about the use of the term, below. Joie de Vivre 21:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding periodic abstience being off topic. I couldn't disagree more. The thing that makes NFP a form of birth control is that these couples do not have sex during the period established by FA methods to be more fertile. Tracking fertility does not prevent babies. Not having sex prevents babies. The KEY thing that makes NFP a form of controlling births is not having sex. Furthermore, this is a very interesting thing that seperates NFP from FAM because it is a theological requirement. Mentioning this in half a clause in one sentence is not giving it undue weight. It is very interesting to note that with FAM, you can use any number of barrier methods of birth control during fertile periods, and that is what prevents babies, but with NFP, it is ALWAYS abstinence.--Andrew c 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew c is correct; the term "natural family planning" is in use in non-religious settings. This strengthens the argument that a sentence should be included to indicate that the term is mainly used as a Catholic term, as evidenced in the first sentence of the natural family planning main article. The uses Andrew c cited have nothing to do with "sin" or any aspect of Catholicism. They describe fertility awareness methods in detail, but refer to them as "natural family planning", with no mention of Catholic restrictions. In these instances, so called "natural family planning" methods may be used by unmarried couples, or with condoms during the fertile period, for example, all of which violate the Catholic meaning of the term. If this is an appropriate usage of the term, there is no need to denote that 'natural family planning' is specifically Catholic, or that any Catholic-decreed restrictions must be upheld in order to use the term.

It is especially important to remember this, if we look at how Lyrl included a mention of natural family planning at the bottom of the History section. The "modern fertility awareness methods" that were developed in the mid-20th century were not only available to those who agreed with certain religious beliefs, they were brought about through scientific discoveries about the function of the female reproductive organs. Adding a reference to the term "natural family planning" may be appropriate, but adding a link to a page that refers to "sin" and the proclamations of the Vatican in this instance is completely inappropriate.

In any case, if the term "natural family planning" is determined to be used appropriately in both religious and non-religious settings, it is misleading to add a pointer to the religious usage with each use of the term. You can't have it both ways, either it's a religious term and must only be used to describe the Catholic usage, or it's not specifically religious, and it can be used without any special mention of (or linking to pages detailing) the Catholic restrictions.

In accordance with the meaning described in the Natural Family Planning main article, I support a division between the two, with NFP always referring to Catholic methods, and with FA referring to any usage of the fertility awareness methods. This would eliminate much confusion. A necessary clarification of the non-religious usage of the term 'natural family planning' has been made in the FA section. Other uses of the term 'Natural Family Planning' should refer to the Catholic meaning. Joie de Vivre 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mention in "History" section

First, several decades of research into biphasic temperature patterns and cervical mucus was done by Catholics, for religious purposes, with the Catholic Church and Catholic organizations as the main source of funding. The Billings ovulation method article has a partial history. These methods were only promoted by Catholics, and almost all users were Catholic. Not until the 1970s did a few feminists become interested in the method, rename it fertility awareness, and begin promoting it secularly. Natural family planning is the original, historical, Catholic term. This information is outside the scope of the current History section, but I believe it supports inclusion of the term NFP in that section.

Second, FA as a term is not as widely recognized as NFP, in part because it is more recent. A parenthetical mention that FA is sometimes called NFP adds clarity. A wikilink to both the FA and NFP articles provides further disambiguation of the terms than only wikilinking to the FA article. Joie has objected to a wikilink of NFP because the article describes the Vatican's definition of particular behavoirs as sins. (S)He has also objected to describing the "specifics of the belief-based set of methods", which I initially interpreted as meaning the restrictions on birth control use and orgasmic acts outside of intercourse. Now I'm wondering if what was meant included wikilinks to the NFP article? I am not following this line of logic at all, and would appreciate clarification. Lyrl Talk Contribs 23:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the parenthetical mention of NFP is misleading when, as in this instance, the term is Wikilinked to the Catholic methods. As Andrew c has demonstrated, not all uses of the term NFP refer to the Catholic restrictions, so it is inappropriate to Wikilink to them indiscriminately, with every use of the term.
In this instance, a mention of the practice of family planning would be as appropriate as the mention of the term Natural Family Planning, but both would clutter the sentence unnecessarily. Mention of FA is sufficient to describe the method, as NFP is a form of FA. I am researching the history of FA and will return with more info on this. Joie de Vivre 17:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The sentence "cluttering" of mentioning NFP serves a purpose - it greatly increases comprehension of the subject matter amoung readers who have heard of NFP, but not FA.
The correct use of the term NFP is described in the Wikipedia article. I do not believe linking to a description of the correct use of the term is misleading in any way.
In this diff of the emergency contraception article [37] the editor claims that menstrual cycle is usually interpreted to mean period, so using it to mean the entire cycle is misleading. Similar to the NFP linking under discussion here, I do not feel that linking to the correct use of the term (menstrual cycle) would have been misleading, even though some people - incorrectly - use the term to mean something else.
Furthermore, despite the common incorrect use of NFP as a secular term, many people (those who have not heard of FA) are still under the impression that NFP is "only for Catholics". This is associated with the negative opinion of the Rhythm Method, association of Rhythm with NFP, and the belief that only devout religious people would use something so ineffective. Linking to both the FA and NFP articles offers readers the opportunity to dispell these false beliefs and learn the correct usage of both terms.
On the history, you might also be interested in what I've been able to scrounge up and put in the Rhythm Method article. It looks like interest in calendar methods was mainly secular, and actually condemned by Christianity for a long time. After the advent of condoms, diaphragms, and then hormonal contraception, secular interest in improving upon Rhythm ended. Catholic scientists did the twentieth century work of developing the physiological methods.

I will repeat once again: the NFP main article clearly maintains the Catholic meaning of the term. Adding a Wikilink is appropriate only when referring to the Catholic meaning of the term, not to any use of the phrase. This is especially true because a disambiguation of the term (NFP) is at the top of the fertility awareness article, so there is no need to wikilink to NFP at every mention of FA. I am too busy to say more at this time, perhaps soon. Joie de Vivre 17:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel strongly about including the term NFP, to increase recognition of what that sentence is talking about. I'm not tied to linking to the NFP article, it just seems a very odd place to not have some sort of wikilink. What about a section link to the FA section in this article? That way clicking on NFP would link to a disambiguation of the term? Lyrl Talk Contribs 23:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The disambiguation in the FA article does no good to any readers who do not click through. And the readers I am concerned about - the ones who have never heard of FA, but recognize the term NFP - are unlikely to click through. I also feel that the term NFP deserves mention in the history section because it is the historical term for these methods. These two concerns have not been addressed by the responses of Joie, despite what he implied in his recent edit summary. Lyrl Talk Contribs 01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Description in "Methods" section

Joie de Vivre has objected to including the "specifics of the belief-based set of methods" and to inclusion of "a thorough description of the religious restrictions involved". I initially interpreted this as meaning the Catholic Church's restrictions on birth control use and orgasmic acts outside of intercourse. I think these are interesting and mention of them adds depth to the Birth control article. I also feel mention of these restrictions helps dispell the common misuse of the term NFP as simply another name for FA. It is a misuse per Wikipedia MOS#Identity which says "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves". Although conflation between NFP and FA is common in the general population, people who actually use the methods distinguish them. That said, I am not devoutly attached to including these aspects of NFP.

However, Joie has twice reverted my edits to the section that clarified that NFP includes FA, statistical methods, and LAM. Not including this very basic definition of NFP, to me, is misleading and implicitly perpetuates the common misunderstanding that NFP and FA are interchangable terms. I feel including this definition is important to the accuracy of the article. I currently do not understand Joie's objection to including this definition, and am requesting clarification. Lyrl Talk Contribs 23:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As we seem to agree that interchangable use of the terms FA and NFP is misleading (though common), I feel that my current revision is appropriate. It includes the phrase "... the term 'natural family planning' is sometimes used to refer to the use of fertility awareness methods...", with 'nfp' not Wikilinked or capitalized. It then has a Wikilinked, capitalized version of the term, which specifically refers to the Catholic method. The reasoning behind this edit is applied with my current revision in the History section. I have made this compromise, including the mention, pending my research of NFP and FA. Joie de Vivre 17:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe the capitalization/no capitalization has no basis and is confusing. Just looking through the previously linked websites, WOOMB (a Catholic organization) does not capitalize NFP [38], while the Couple to Couple League does use all capitals [39]. Among organizations without Catholic ties, it is equally easy to find both all capitals [40] and all lower case [41]. Because none of the groups who use the term display any consistent meaning with use of caps/lower case, I do not believe the usage is meaningful in this article. It does, however, make that paragraph more difficult to read.
As stated in the previous section, I do not believe that linking to a description of the correct use of a term is misleading just because a number of readers use the term incorrectly. Rather, I feel the educational opportunity for such readers is a benefit. Lyrl Talk Contribs 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NFP description - is it just FA?

My edits to the NFP section to clarified that NFP includes not just FA, but also statistical methods and LAM, have been reverted. Not including this very basic definition of NFP, to me, is misleading and implicitly perpetuates the common misunderstanding that NFP and FA are interchangable terms. I feel including this definition is important to the accuracy of the article. I currently do not understand Joie's objection to including this definition, and am requesting clarification. Lyrl Talk Contribs 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please use my full handle, Joie de Vivre; as someone else could register the handle 'Joie'.
Not every use of the term "NFP" is in reference to the umbrella term; NFP can be used to describe the Catholic-affiliated FA practice. However, in order to be perfectly clear, I have added mention of the fact that NFP is an umbrella term, and clarified that FA practices are only one type of NFP. Joie de Vivre 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone edited this section to remove the longstanding sentence. This confused the matter, because it is a fact that NFP sometimes is used interchangeably with FA. I think it is our duty to instead of taking sides and saying that some definitions are right, and others are wrong, instead simply say that both are used. I have posted links in the past to illustrate the use of the term NFP to refer to non-religious FA methods. Whether we personally believe this is an incorrect usage is besides the point. We don't report the Truth, or our opinions. We have cited soures using the term in this manner, and to avoid confusion and disambiugation issues, I find it helpful to mention the term is sometimes used in this manner. I have restored the longstanding sentence in two different articles.--Andrew c 16:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Andrew c, you only partially restored the paragraph to what it was before. Your edit didn't make sense grammatically. It went from speaking about "these methods" in one sentence, to referring to "this" method in the next, without indicating which method. It was a frankenparagraph of the first half of the old paragraph and the second half of the new one, the meaning wasn't contiguous.
I have made an effort to address everyone's concerns with my most recent edit, specifically, as Andrew c voiced concern about it, this edit restores mention of the usage of the term NFP as an alternate meaning for any use of FA.
The other types of NFP are not listed, for several reasons. The heading of the section is "fertility awareness". Right now, everything in that section is relevant to fertility awareness. It clarifies the meaning of the term 'NFP' as it directly relates to the practice of FA, both in the Catholic context of the religiously motivated practice of FA as NFP, and on its own as FA itself. This edit is careful to refer to this practice as only one form of NFP, and clearly specifies that 'NFP' can refer to "a set of several" methods. This is sufficient and maintains relevance to the title. Listing the other things to which the term NFP can refer brings the paragraph outside of the title of the section. Hopefully, this will satisfy everyone. Joie de Vivre 19:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Abstinence not 'infallible'

Abstinence supporters claim that abstinence is the 'only infallible method' of birth control -- a Google search of the terms "abstinence, infallible" retrieves over 130,000 results. Even the U.S. Surgeon General makes this claim [42]. However, this is simply not true, because it is possible for a man to rape a woman and cause her to become pregnant. A woman, practicing abstinence, cannot choose to maintain her abstinence if she is raped. Therefore, abstinence is not an 'infallible' method of birth control.

Lyrl mentioned in a recent edit summary that men can be raped, when she changed the sentence to read "Non-consensual sex can also result in pregnancy". This, while true, is not enough. This claim is true of any otherwise fertile woman whose fertility is not suppressed within her body (by HBC or an IUD, for instance). We don't mention that rape can result in pregnancy if the woman relies on condoms, barrier methods, etc, because no one claims these methods are perfect. The reason that rape is mentioned in this specific section (and not others) is to counter the widespread idea that abstinence is 'infallibile'. No birth control method is 100% perfect, and the current sentence reflects an important reason that abstinence is imperfect. Joie de Vivre 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A man, practicing abstinence, cannot choose to maintain his abstinence if he is raped. A fertile woman can rape a man and become pregnant. This is discussed here (see especially the fourth paragraph). The current wording of the abstinence section does not acknowledge this possibility.
Intention to remain abstinent does not mean a person cannot become pregnant (a person intending to remain abstinent may be carried away by passion, or raped). But a person who has not engaged in any kind of sexual activity cannot become pregnant. Surely we can find wording to express this. Lyrl Talk Contribs 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"Barring exceptional circumstances such as rape, abstinence is the only infallible method of birth control." CyberAnth 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Saying that a female being raped is only one of the ways abstinence can fail does not remove the implication in the text that rape is only a "female" problem.
I also feel strongly that some mention needs to be made that a person who has not had any sexual activity cannot have become pregnant. Lyrl Talk Contribs 22:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither suggested change makes sense. The sentence says "one of the ways" because that wording allows for every possible scenario that could lead to pregnancy. Example: a single lesbian who has never had intercourse could visit a sperm bank in order to become pregnant. She is completely abstinent, but she is pregnant. This scenario has nothing to do with abstinence as birth control; it need not be mentioned, but it disproves the idea that a complete absence of sexual activity will always prevent pregnancy. And in regards to the other types of rape: considering that hundreds of thousands of women are raped by men each year, the current wording is appropriate. It concisely describes a statistically probable way that abstinence could fail, while leaving the door open for other, more remote possibilities. Joie de Vivre 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
A person who does not intend to cause pregnancy cannot do so without engaging in sexual activity (forcible insemination would be considered rape). The current wording abstinence cannot be considered perfect or infallible implies this is not true. There is no need to have this statement in the text. The only reason to include it is to bring the U.S.-specific sex-ed controversy into a description of the practice of abstinence; this is inappropriate. It is entirely possible to describe all of the ways (failure of discipline and rape) in which abstinence can fail without such U.S.-controversy-inspired language as "abstinence cannot be considered infallible". Lyrl Talk Contribs 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
There are only two ways abstinence can fail: failure of discipline, and rape (intentionally using ART is not a failure of abstinence - such issues as what to do with frozen embryos when a couple divorces are not related to abstinence as a birth control method).
Rape could be of a man or woman. Listing out failure of discipline, and only one relevent kind of rape, but omitting the other relevant kind of rape seriously minimalizes the act. The fact that "only" thousands of men are annually raped by women is not justification for implying that it isn't an issue that needs to be taken seriously. Inclusion of both kinds of rape can be done simply by making the language gender-neutral. Lyrl Talk Contribs 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you any statistics to support the claim that "thousands" of men are raped by women each year? I am well aware that rape victims can be male or female, but everything I have read on the subject has stated that, regardless of the sex of their victims, the perpetrators are overwhelmingly male. This supports my claim that the most likely way that abstinence could fail is through a man raping a woman, and that this instance should be mentioned primarily, using language inclusive of more remote possibilities.
There is, absolutely, a need to include the statement that abstinence is not infallible. As I said, even the United States Surgeon General has made this erroneous claim. What, if not an idea proposed by a first-world, national government is globally significant enough for comment or critique? I am frustrated that you seek to delete mention of a major flaw in a method which is widely promoted by a first-world national government as "infallible", as well as seeking to delete mention of the claim, itself. It is entirely appropriate to offer points that counter widespread misinformation, especially when that misinformation, left unaddressed, could cause serious harm.
As I said at the very beginning, the only reason that rape should be mentioned in reference to this specific method, is because of the widely-promoted claim that this method is infallible. Yet, you want to remove mention of this claim, citing that you want to use language inclusive of male victims. In that case, why should rape be mentioned in this section only? If you're genuinely concerned with rape victims, why not insist on mentioning rape when speaking of any birth control method that must be used at the time of intercourse? Are abstinent folks special in some way?
It seems that your intention is not to be truly inclusive of male rape victims, but to use their plight to as a reason to block critical content. Joie de Vivre 00:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to list anyone's views of abstinence, positive or negative, in the abstinence section. Neither opposition nor promotion of condoms is discussed in the "condom" section. The "methods" subsection should be strictly limited to description, not controversies. Those have their very own section - "Religious and cultural attitudes". Lyrl Talk Contribs 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really certain what you mean when you refer to a 'controversy' surrounding the content. Certainly, the idea of sex outside of marriage is a controversial topic, but there no content included that refers to either side of a belief-based controversy in regards to sexual behavior. There can be no controversy over the fact that abstinence is not perfect, due to the possibility of rape.
Furthermore, I will repeat that I am not seeking to describe every possible, circumstantial way that abstinence or any of the other methods can fail. I am seeking to correct a common piece of misinformation. I disagree with your intention to sanitize and censor this content. Joie de Vivre 00:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to throw a wrench in here and say that

...abstinence cannot be considered perfect or infallible; one reason is that a fertile woman who practices abstinence alone can still become pregnant if she is raped"...

nor any gender neutral variant of the above, does not even belong in the article. Why?

Because it is an editor-drawn conclusion, and hence WP:OR, editor-given in response to the cited United States Surgeon General statement.

But it is unsupported by the source. If you want to include a statement along these lines, find a reliable secondary source and state what it says. Otherwise, leave the editorializing out.

CyberAnth 00:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that I must produce a published statement that rape can lead to pregnancy, in order to include that content in the article? Here is one. I can also produce an article declaring the Pope a Catholic if necessary. Joie de Vivre 01:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Item #1: It is common knowledge that rape occurs and can lead to pregnancy.

Item #2: A Surgeon General has claimed abstinence is the only "infallible" method of birth control.

Item #3: A Wikipedia editor has synthesized the two and stated "abstinence cannot be considered perfect or infallible; one reason is that a fertile woman who practices abstinence alone can still become pregnant if she is raped".

That is [[]] and cannot be included. CyberAnth 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On 22:32, 10 December 2006, User:Joie de Vivre removed the wikilink WP:OR#SYNTHESIS from the above entry. See edit history. CyberAnth 03:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, CyberAnth, you seem to be pretty knowledgable about Wikipedia policies. I am sure that any attempts on my part to edit this will be struck down by you because of your greater knowledge of Wikipedia. However, I would like to learn how best to go about including mention of rape as event that can lead to pregnancy, defying the 'infallibility' of sexual abstinence. As a friend of over a dozen people who have been raped, both male and female, adults and teenagers, some as small children, I feel very strongly that this issue should not be glossed over. Please educate me or point me towards what I need to know in order in order to appropriately include this content. Joie de Vivre 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear how this issue has touched your life.
I venture the issue has been addressed in a reliable secondary source. Find it and cite away! This is one way Wikipedia becomes better as to WP:V.
Cheers,
CyberAnth 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Find and cite what? Evidence that rape can lead to pregnancy? I did that, despite the fact that you, yourself said that it was 'common knowledge' that rape can lead to pregnancy. I really don't understand what is missing. Before you claimed it was 'original research', now you're saying it's 'synthesis'. How is it against the rules to include a piece of 'common knowledge'? I'm not surprised if it would be very difficult to find a piece of work that details this, because it is common knowledge and thus wastes print space to spell it out. How exacting are you saying that this published work must be? What are you saying that it must include? Joie de Vivre 02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First off, you are appearing like someone who is engaging in WP:POVPUSH, as indicated by the fact that you removed the link to WP:OR#SYNTHESIS from my earlier post, plus your unexplained removal of the Surgeon General source on the article a few minutes ago.

Second, read thoroughly WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Synthesizing is a form of WP:OR, per its section WP:OR#SYNTHESIS. Read that and you will see that what you are attempting to do is covered there and not permissible. If you wish to include the viewpoint you are trying to advance it MUST be sourced to a reliable source.

CyberAnth 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there is some contention over this, I thought there might be a better way of framing this discussion that would satisfy everyone.

Clearly any discussion of the fallibility or infallibility of abstinence ought to be treated the same way it is for the other methods of birth control, to establish objectivity. The other sections detailing the types of birth control do not mention their success rate - that is reserved for the "Effectiveness" section. Thus, the mentions of the fallibility or infallibilty of abstinence should be moved from its general section to the "effectiveness" section.

Furthermore, it is noted in the Effectiveness section that condoms and other forms of birth control have failure rates, due to the breaking of the condom. Logically, abstinence's failure in the situation of rape deserves equal mention here - while ideally this does not occur, condoms don't ideally break, either. They are the same situation, and mention of this is requisite for fairness. This should clear the definitional section where abstinence is described of any subjective argumentation, as well as point out the limitations of the approach, exactly the same way it has been done for the other birth control methods. If no logical issues with this approach are brought up, I will post those changes. Xenikos 04:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Xenikos

So long as they are referenced per the preceding discussion, I'm cool. CyberAnth 04:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wording of abstinence description

In response to Xenikos, a few other sections do mention factors relevant to success rate: The Rhythm Method is much less accurate than fertility awareness method; coitus interruptus... Although concern has been raised about the risk of pregnancy from sperm in pre-ejaculate, several small studies[1][2] have failed to find any viable sperm in the fluid.; The risk of pregnancy from non-vaginal sex is low.

I think it is interesting that abstinence - i.e. no sexual activity - has the unique characteristic of having no risk of unplanned pregnancy. Joie de Vivre (if I understand his position correctly) believes that any statement in this article that "unintended pregnancy cannot occur without sexual activity" - could cause serious harm. The nature of said harm has remained unspecified. Despite initial disagreement, I thought we could come to agreement on a way to include the unique effectiveness of abstinence, and thought that including a mention of rape-caused pregnancy was a necessary part of any compromise on Joie de Vivre's part. I did not have any objection to including all two ways in which a person who intended to use abstinence to avoid pregnancy could have a "birth control failure", and believe wording is possible to avoid violation of WP#SYNTHESIS (one example would be my original suggestion). If no such agreement is possible, however, then I support removing all reference to effectiveness in the abstinence section. Lyrl Talk Contribs 00:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that your wording in the link you posted avoids violating WP:OR#SYNTHESIS. "Non-consensual sexual activity (rape) may also result in pregnancy" is a statement of common knowledge (thus not requiring referencing) and avoids the problematic synthesis between that fact of knowledge and the Surgeon General's comment. Joie worded it as an attack on the Surgeon General's comment where no secondary source was cited as having done so, and as such it was WP:OR#SYNTHESIS. CyberAnth 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitely object to mention of "abstinence supporters" in the abstinence description. I can only think this is shorthand for "supporters of abstinence-only education for teenagers" which is getting into a sex-ed debate. The sex-ed debate has its very own section "Birth control education" which is formatted to be a longer section covering both sides of the debate. There is no reason to include this debate in the description of abstinence. Lyrl Talk Contribs 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I plan to delete the following sentence: "Avoiding all sexual activity is the only infallible method of birth control" on the grounds that (1) this sentence is not true and (2) this sentence is not supported by a citation (and cannot be supported by any citation because it is not true).
The sentence is false for two reasons: (1) There may be other infallible methods of birth control, for example: castration plus waiting a period of time before sexual activity; abortion; suicide. (2) Avoiding all sexual activity does not necessarily prevent pregnancy. It seems plausible to me that a woman could become pregannt by sitting on a toilet seat which is wet with semen, or by touching her private parts as part of toiletry or fertility awareness activity etc. (not necessarily sexual activity) after shaking hands with a man who had just masturbated, or by being touched by a health care provider who unknowingly had his own or someone else's semen on his/her hand. It is not necessary for sperm to be placed in the vagina for pregnancy to occur. Fertile mucus has channels which can stretch from inside the cervix to outside the vagina, (at the most fertile times of the month) and sperm swim along these channels. Wet semen contacting wet fertile mucus which is connected to the vagina can lead to pregnancy. In principle only one or a very small number of sperm are needed; a smaller number may lower the probability to neglibible levels but not to levels of infallibility. In any case, a number of different nonsexual activities involve introducing things into the vagina; one cannot guarantee that such things would never have sperm on them. To claim that abstinence is "infallible" one would have to provide proof that no such pregnancy had ever happened and that none will never happen in future. Statistics cannot provide that sort of proof.
I also plan to delete "However" from the following sentence to maintain a smoothly flowing paragraph.
Any comments or objections? --Coppertwig 16:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There are available citations for abstinence being the "only infallible method of birth control". Georgetown University, The U.S. Surgeon General, and Time Magazine were three I turned up.
Sperm die quickly upon contact with air [43] The vulva does not contact the toilet seat. Examples exist of people engaging in non-intercourse sexual activity and getting pregnant. I couldn't turn up anything on a quick Google search, but I know one girl published her story in Seventeen magazine, and a woman on a message board I frequent experienced this, so I have personal anecdotal evidence. However, something as dubious as a pregnancy not resulting from engaging in sexual activity would need a citation to support it. Otherwise, citations for the plausible statement suffice.
Edited to add: while specific stories of pregnancy resulting from alternative sexual activities are difficult to find, sites describing these dangers are easy to find (example). I would find acceptable as evidence that abstinence is not infallible if such a site were to be found describing the pregnancy risk from non-sexual activities like those proposed by Coppertwig. Lyrl Talk C 21:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Abortion does have a failure rate - a small but significant number of women have to get the procedure done twice (especially very early in pregnancy - this is why most places won't do surcial abortion before eight weeks), or if they attempt a misoprostol abortion and it doesn't work they have to have a surgical abortion. In humans, castration is not used as a form of birth control. Nor is hysterectomy or suicide. Abstinence is promoted as a form of birth control.
As stated above, I find this characteristic of abstinence to be unique and interesting. However, if you feel so strongly about not mentioning abstinence's effectiveness, I'm not going to get into an edit war with you. Lyrl Talk C 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I also find the effectiveness of abstinence to be interesting and likely worth mentioning. I hope we can work together (not "war") to find wording acceptable to both of us. I feel strongly about not including in Wikipedia statements which appear to me to be clearly false.

The citations you're thinking of probably verify that certain people have said that abstinence is infallible; not that it actually is infallible. You might consider saying in the article something like "The Surgeon General of the USA has claimed that ..."

Sperm do not necessarily contact air when a drop or clump of semen sits alone on a surface for several minutes. People do things like collect semen samples in cups or bottles and carry them from one room to another (or from one building to another) before using them for things like artificial insemination or fertility testing. There's air in the cup or bottle but it doesn't contact sperm that are away from the surface of the drop or clump. Similarly, semen could rest on a surface such as a chair for minutes at least and still have viable sperm. Even if it dries "quickly", it's possible that not much time might pass between the two people using the surface.

You say the vulva does not contact the toilet seat. Maybe not usually, but I'm sure vulvas contact toilet seats. There are billions of women and I'm sure all sorts of things happen: people stumble and fall; some people may have habits of sliding on or off the seat; people turn while sitting to reach for things behind them or on the floor; rooms are funny shapes and people sit sideways; sometimes rooms are dark; etc. etc. etc. Anyway, the issue is not whether vulvas ever actually contact toilet seats, but whether vulvas are capable of contacting toilet seats (containing viable sperm, during nonsexual activity) and I think it's quite obvious that the answer is yes. (Wiktionary: infallible: "Without fault or weakness; incapable of error or fallacy".)

I know, abortion doesn't always kill the fetus. Nevertheless, there may be methods such as repeated attempts at abortion or abortion backed up by suicide as a last resort, which might be infallible. Suicide not used as birth control by humans? I don't believe it's never used for that purpose. Anyway, the issue is not whether certain methods are used but whether the methods exist.

Incidentally, here is a case of someone getting pregnant without intercourse (although not without sexual activity I would say). http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/Can_you_get_pregnant_without_having_sex (scroll down to last comment "I am a 32 year old woman...") This could be more common than people think. Each case would be difficult or impossible to verify; people may not even tell others for fear of not being believed. --Coppertwig 03:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on finding that case. As I said above, specific examples like that are difficult to find. Websites describing the risks of such activity, however, are relatively plentiful. I believe that to include in the article that pregnancy can occur without sexual activity we would not need a specific example of such a pregnancy. We would need a WP:RS speculating that such a thing could happen, not just you and I discussing it. If the only reliable sources found all agree on something, it is acceptable to treat it as fact in a Wikipedia article. Only if different reliable sources disagree are we obliged to report in "A says B" and "Z says Y" style. Lyrl Talk C 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting mentioning pregnancy without sexual activity, or pregnancy without intercourse, in the article. My suggestion is to delete one sentence about abstinence being infallible. Since you don't like that suggestion, Wikipedia policy is that we should try to find a compromise. As you point out, Wikipedia policy doesn't require saying "A says B" here. I believe Wikipedia policy also does not forbid saying "A says B" here. I believe it gives us considerable freedom in trying to reach a compromise: we can delete the sentence (except that you don't like that); or we can leave it as it stands (except that I don't like that); or we can replace it with an "A says B" style sentence; or there are also other things we can do within Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest that as a compromise, you write an "A says B" style sentence or some other sentence you think will be acceptable to both of us, and present it here for review.
I understand that you're saying that all the reliable sources agree on abstinence being infallible. Do you also personally believe that it is infallible? If so, how do you reconcile that with the points I brought up above? (One reason for asking is that I would need to understand your point of view, and what you want to say in the article, considerably better before I could attempt writing a compromise sentence.) --Coppertwig 00:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe sufficiently wet semen to still contain live sperm could accidently contact a woman's vulva in a non-sexual situation. I do not believe a reliable source could be found with even speculation along those lines. Deleting the current statement about infallibility would be my choice for a compromise. Lyrl Talk C 02:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've deleted the sentence in the article. Thanks for your cooperation. --Coppertwig 12:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Birth_control/Archive_1&oldid=1249106290"